Teresa is a strong advocate for her employment law, civil rights and municipal liability clients. In her role as an experienced litigator, Teresa represents school districts, school leaders, municipalities, police departments and various non-profit and corporate entities, in claims made and suits brought against them. She appears regularly in both the state and federal courts, representing clients in suits brought against them involving Section 1983 claims, Title VII actions, ADEA, ADA, FMLA and PHRA matters.
When called on to represent and defend school leaders and school districts, Teresa’s experience and understanding in education law serve her clients well. She represents all types of education clients with a focus on Special Education Law, Due Process Student Rights, Bullying and Anti-Bullying Policies and Educator Due Process.
In addition to her experience as a litigator, Teresa represents employers and other professionals in various administrative matters; before the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, the National Labor Relations Board, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and multiple other administrative units including the Pennsylvania Department of Education, the Office for Dispute Resolution, the Office for Civil Rights and the State Ethics Commission. Teresa also consults with employers, school leaders and various types of public entities on matters including auditing, updating and revising personnel manuals and educational policies.
A member of the Allegheny County Bar Association, Teresa is recognized among The Best Lawyers in America® for 2024 and 2025 in the areas of Litigation – Labor and Employment and was recognized as a Best Lawyer in 2025 in the area of Employment Law – Management. Notably, Teresa was also recently inducted as a Fellow of the Academy of Trial Lawyers of Allegheny County, a community of trial lawyers committed to improving the civil trial process, preserving the jury system and enhancing the quality of trial advocacy in Allegheny County. Fellows must have significant trial experience and exhibit the highest levels of ethical standards and professionalism.
Teresa is admitted to practice before the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania and all Pennsylvania state courts.
Thought Leadership
Legal Updates for Special Education Law
Legal Update for Special Education Law – Case Law Update
July 1, 2025
U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Standard for Disability Discrimination Claims in Education Under Section 504 and ADA A.J.T., by and through her parents, A.T., et al. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279, et al., 605 U.S. --- , --- S. Ct. ---, 2025 WL 1657415 (June 12, 2025) In a ruling clarifying the rights of students with disabilities, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously held that schoolchildren bringing claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act are not required to show “bad faith or gross misjudgment” to recover damages related to educational services. This case alleged that a school district refused to provide supplemental instruction during the early evening to a special education student with a rare form of epilepsy that prevented her from attending school until midday. The District Court concluded that the child was entitled to the instruction and compensatory education. In addressing the parents’ suit for money damages under Section 504 and the ADA, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed that claim because the parents had not established that the school district’s refusal amounted to bad faith or gross misjudgment. The petitioner, A.J.T., a teenager with a rare form of epilepsy that severely limits her physical and cognitive functioning, suffers from seizures that are so frequent in the mornings that she cannot attend school before noon but is alert and able to learn between noon and 6 p.m. For the first few years of her schooling, A.J.T.’s school district accommodated her condition by providing her with afternoon and evening instruction and allowed her to avoid morning activities. In 2015, A.J.T.’s family moved, and her new school district, Osseo Area Public Schools, denied her parents’ request to provide evening instruction in A.J.T.’s IEP. This denial resulted in A.J.T. only receiving 4.25 hours of instruction per day as compared to the standard 6.5 hours of schooling received by nondisabled students in the district. A.J.T.’s parents filed an IDEA complaint with the Minnesota Department of Education, claiming a denial of FAPE. The administrative law judge ruled that the school district had violated the IDEA and ordered the school district to provide compensatory education and evening instruction. Federal courts affirmed the ruling, upholding the award of compensatory education under the IDEA. A.J.T. and her parents then sued the school district in the Federal District Court under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, requesting a permanent injunction, reimbursement of certain costs and compensatory damages. The District Court granted summary judgment to the school district. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment, holding that a school district’s failure to provide a reasonable accommodation was not enough to state a prima facie case of discrimination as established by prior case law. In addition, the Eighth Circuit upheld a requirement that a plaintiff prove that school officials’ conduct rose to the level of bad faith or gross misjudgment in order to recover damages under either the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act. Certain other courts of appeal have also applied the same heightened standard as the Eighth Circuit, but not all. In reaching its decision resolving the split, the Supreme Court recognized that, outside of the educational services context, courts only require a “deliberate indifference” standard to obtain compensatory damages under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act for intentional discrimination. However, the Court noted that the statutory remedial or substantive protections of Title II of the ADA or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act suggest that claims based on educational services should be subject to a more demanding standard. The Court further referenced the specific statutory language of the IDEA, which provides that nothing in the IDEA “shall be construed to restrict or limit the rights, procedures, and remedies available under” the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, or other federal laws protecting disabling children’s rights, noting that a heightened standard of “bad faith or gross misjudgment” is irreconcilable with the unambiguous directive of this section of the IDEA. By imposing a heightened standard, the appeals court limited the ability of disabled schoolchildren to assert their independent rights under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, thereby making it more difficult to obtain remedies provided by Congress when it enacted this newer provision of the IDEA. Going forward, claims based on educational services brought pursuant to the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act should be subject to the same standards applied in other disability discrimination contexts. Legal Update for Special Education Law – July 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.
Legal Updates for Special Education Law
Legal Update for Special Education Law – Updates from the Pennsylvania Department of Education
June 1, 2024
Commonwealth Court voids Pennsylvania Department of Education’s newly imposed Age-Out Plan for failure to implement it in accordance with Pennsylvania Laws.* PSBA, Inc., et al. v. Dr. Khalid N. Mumin, Secretary of Education of the Pa. Dept. of Ed., et al., 2024 WL 2195545 (Pa. Cmwlth. May 16, 2024) On May 16, 2024, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court issued an en banc decision granting the petitioners’ Application for Summary Relief and denying the Pennsylvania Department of Education’s (PDE) cross Application for Summary Relief. In its petition, the petitioners asserted that the PDE illegally implemented a new regulation requiring Pennsylvania Local Educational Agencies (LEA) to provide a Free and Appropriate Education (FAPE) until a student’s 22nd birthday—rather than through the end of the school term in which the student reaches 21 years of age—otherwise known as the “Age-Out Plan.” More specifically, the petitioners—the Pennsylvania School Boards Association (PSBA) and three school districts across Pennsylvania—alleged the PDE did not follow the required rulemaking procedures to implement the new Age-Out Plan, which would have included public and timely notice prior to implementing the regulation. Without timely notice of the new Plan, the petitioners, including PSBA members, could not budget to account for the new, additional services to eligible students and, in turn, were required to educate students with unbudgeted funds. The lack of timely notice made the petitioners also ineligible for related funding. The Commonwealth Court sided with the PSBA and the school districts, finding that the New Age-Out Plan was a binding regulation with the effect of law, thus requiring the PDE to promulgate it in accordance with applicable Pennsylvania laws. Finding that the PDE did not do so, the Commonwealth Court ruled that the New Age-Out Plan was void ab initio and unenforceable. The underlying facts giving rise to the cross petitions were largely stipulated by the parties. In July 2023, a student, through his parents, filed a class action complaint in the Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania alleging that the PDE’s Age-Out Plan violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) by prematurely cutting off special education services of 21-year-old students. On August 30, 2023, the PDE entered into a settlement agreement with the student and his parents to end the litigation. In the settlement agreement, PDE agreed, beginning with the 2023–2024 school year, to change its Age-Out Plan expiration from the end of the school year in which a child with disabilities turns age 21 to his/her 22nd birthday. The written settlement agreement specifically outlined the terms of the “New Age-Out Plan” providing that: the PDE will rescind and cease implementing and enforcing the Age-Out Plan as it exists in its Model Policy at Section 300.101; the PDE “has amended Section 300.101” to reflect that the IDEA requires Pennsylvania to provide a FAPE to children with disabilities until their 22nd birthday (New Age-Out Plan); immediately upon execution of the settlement agreement, the PDE will implement, publish and enforce the New Age-Out Plan to be effective no later than September 5, 2023; and the New Age-Out Plan will apply to all children with disabilities as defined in the U.S. Department of Education’s Regulations including those who turned 21 during or after the 2022–2023 school term. Further, the settlement agreement required the PDE, within 24 hours, to post online and to send a notice letter via several different means of communication to parents of children with disabilities who turned 21 during the 2022-2023 school year of their potential eligibility to re-enroll. On August 30, 2023, the PDE also, in accordance with the settlement agreement, immediately revised its Model Policy to reflect the new policy and otherwise followed the terms of the settlement agreement. Importantly, the court noted that the PDE never notified the LEAs before entering into the settlement agreement on August 30, 2023, or before revising its policy, both of which occurred after the LEAs had adopted their budgets and set their taxes on or before June 30 of each year. The court rejected all of the PDE’s arguments in its cross petition, including that there was no actual controversy since the LEAs had yet to implement the new regulation, that the petitioners lacked standing, and that the petitioners failed to exhaust administrative remedies before going directly to the Commonwealth Court. In its ruling in favor of the petitioners, the court noted that the petitioners were not challenging the IDEA and were not skirting any of its legal obligations to provide a FAPE to students with disabilities. Rather, the court noted that the petitioners merely sought to have the court declare whether the PDE could implement and enforce the New Age-Out Plan via the settlement agreement instead of complying with Pennsylvania laws that specifically require certain rulemaking procedures, including providing notice to the public of its proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for the public to comment, along with legislative scrutiny. Without such compliance and a “mere six days’ notice” to comply with the New Age-Out Plan, the PDE put the LEAs in the position of having to provide a FAPE to eligible students until their 22nd birthday with unbudgeted funds and to risk losing federal funding for a failure to comply. Accordingly, the court found that the petitioners had a substantial, direct, immediate interest and imminent harm relative to the implementation of the new regulation, thereby declaring the new regulation unenforceable. *The PDE has appealed the Commonwealth Court’s ruling invalidating the New Age-Out Plan to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. This appeal remains pending. The appeal effectively stays the Commonwealth Court’s decision pending the outcome in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which means that the New Age-Out Plan remains in full force and effect at this time. Legal Update for Special Education Law – June 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.
